Harrumph Harrumph

One of the columnist’s roles is to act as the Harrumph-Harrumph Police.

I know many wonderful public officials, elected and appointed, but power can be heady. Sometimes these people need to be relieved of some self-important hot air.

We make an excellent pin.

It’s perhaps in that capacity that I comment on recent events in the East Penn School District.

By way of background, I’ll explain that there has been some tension in East Penn between those — on and off the school board — who have balked at tax increases and what they feel is excessive spending, and those who feel the increases and spending are justified. I’m not sufficiently familiar with the history to take a position on that, but I will say that this basic disagreement has been at the root of almost every school district conflict I’ve covered over the years. I’ll also say that frequent district critic Otto Slozer, a member of my Hall of Fame of the area’s most colorful characters, has been a polarizing figure in this continuing dispute, and that my past experiences with Slozer — even though I defended him not long ago in a column — haven’t suggested that he always has a great sense of perspective.

My general feeling is that it’s unrealistic to expect spending and taxes to remain constant in the face of inflation and the Legislature’s craven political decision to shift a heavier burden for school funding onto local property taxes, so tax increases are inevitable. It doesn’t help that urban sprawl is flooding some of these districts with new kids, forcing expensive construction projects and staff hiring that don’t pay for themselves with the tax money they generate.

At the same time, I’ve argued that teacher unions need to accept the economic realities that the rest of us are facing in the private sector, including a heavier burden for our own health care costs and limited, if any, salary increases. Teachers who don’t get this aren’t going to generate a lot of sympathy.

Saucon Valley, take note.

Anyway, Upper Milford resident Grant Carter got up at the East Penn School Board’s April 27 meeting and pointed out some discrepancies between the current teacher contract and the new one. He’s an engineer, very accustomed to perusing contracts carefully, and says he had questions about what he was seeing with these East Penn contracts and the process by which they were approved.

I read the statement he delivered at the meeting, and outside of one mildly snarky comment about the teachers union, it didn’t seem particularly confrontational. Then again, I’ve seen a lot of real confrontations, so maybe my standards are skewed.

The board thanked him for his comments and he sat down. He says he presumed the administration would check into his concerns and provide a response.

I have to tell you that to my mind, this is the essence of good citizenship. If more people paid close attention to what their public officials are doing, we’d have better government. They should be asking questions.

East Penn School Superintendent Thomas Seidenberger didn’t see it that way. His May 12 written response to Carter had a decided edge to it.

First, he noted, “I am pleased to relate that your accusations are completely unfounded and wrong.” Then he sort of said they were right, noting, “Basically, you uncovered omissions from the current contract. The new contract simply corrected those omissions.”

OK, whatever. He offered what he felt was a thorough explanation, although Carter doesn’t particularly agree. The real problem came near the end.

“I am inviting you to a future Board meeting,” Seidenberger wrote, “to offer a public apology regarding the derogatory statements you made about the teachers’ association. I’m sure they will appreciate your sense of fairness.”

Apology? For questioning what the superintendent himself admitted were omissions in the contract?

“I thought it was outrageous,” Carter told me. “I think it’s wholly inappropriate to ask someone to apologize for pointing out their own error in handling contracts. It’s kind of like he’s a little king saying to his subject to apologize. I think he’s supposed to serve at the pleasure of the board, and we elect the board.”

Carter got up again at last week’s board meeting and responded publicly to Seidenberger’s letter. He concluded, “Frankly, Mr. Seidenberger, your arrogance and condescension are stunning. Truly astounding. They serve to illustrate the problems inherent within this administration and they also provide an insight as to why our taxes have been skyrocketing in recent years and why the school system's debt level has ballooned to obscene proportions. The fact is…this board has been secretive, sloppy, and irresponsible in its stewardship of the taxpayer's money.”

I called Seidenberger after Carter got his letter. The superintendent said I needed to see this in the context of all the other conflict, and that Carter’s tone was clearly accusatory.

Seidenberger argued that if Carter would have come into the office and sat down with him, he would have made it clear there was nothing sneaky about the apparent omissions, which were easily explained. He objected to Carter presenting his claims in public, particularly with an uncivil tone.

The bottom line is that Seidenberger’s reaction had as much to do with the heat being applied by his regular critics as it did with the specifics of Carter’s comments, but he felt a line was crossed.

I wasn’t there, so I can’t assess the tone of the remarks. And I have been an advocate for civility in public discourse.

But in my opinion, public employees have no business asking taxpayers to apologize for questioning their actions, even when the concerns are unfounded. You answer the question — if there’s a misconception, you clarify it — thank them for their interest, and move on.

I also see no reason why taxpayers should be expected to schedule private meetings to air their concerns, although I’m glad that's an option in East Penn. Courtesy of the floor is a perfectly appropriate forum for raising questions, if not for getting an immediate answer.

So as far as I’m concerned, Superintendent Seidenberger is the one who ought to be apologizing. We’ll all appreciate his sense of fairness.

Perhaps Mr. Seidenberger's arrogance and condescension is why he has not lasted very long in any of his Superintendent stints. Further, Mr. Seidenberger should remember who pays his extravagant salary. THE TAXPAYERS!!!

Posted By: Clem Cudiddlehopper | Jun 15, 2009 7:36:17 PM

Private meetings are how the real problems get worked out. Sorry, Bill, but this just the way it is. The Sunshine Act is a two-edged sword. Yes, the public gets to "see" the decision being made. The Act also stifles meaningful discussion. The sort of problems facing school districts today require open and honest discussion which might offend people or be taken out of context and spun in the wrong way by the media to sell more advertising. The Act has made all discussion guarded by smart board members and theatrical by not so smart board members, but in any case, not useful towards progress on solving the problems mostly caused by the Idiots of Harrisburg

Phil: I agree that the private meeting might have been the most efficient way for him to get answers to his questions in this case, assuming he has time to do that during the work day, but the question is: Should a taxpayer apologize because he chooses to air his concern -- even if it's misguided -- at a public meeting rather than a private one? I don't see why he should.

Posted By: bill white | Jun 16, 2009 10:06:44 AM

Phil, If your goal is efficiency, do away with democracy altogether. That's the most inefficient form of government in existence.

A democratic form of government is supposed to be interested in what citizens think. At times, this can certainly lead to a circus, but I'll take that over some small cabal who meets in back rooms to decide what is best for us.

When he entered the East Penn SD meeting, he should immediately have dropped to all fours and crawled on his belly to the podium, and begged Mr Seidenberger to let him lick his shoes.
He should have thanked the School board for taxing him, and asked if he could give "MORE.'

Then, and only then, after paying tribute to those in East Penn who envision themselves as the offspring of Caesar, should he have dared speak.

They are building a beautiful new school complex in Lower macungie off Sauerkraut Lane, this less than 5 years after closing several smaller school buildings because they were "not needed."

Ah, the logic of those spending other people's money. Newer, Bigger, Better. Isn't it wonderful?

Imagine that, a school board comprised of people who have to take off their shoes to count to four, managing a budget that is over a hundred million dollars.

Does Norco Council have an Internship program? I can't help but think that if they did, these folks in East penn would surely qualify as graduates of it.

As I recall Mr. Carter's remarks, he accused the union of trying to deceive the board by slipping new positions into the contract. As Bill noted in his post, the Superintendent invited Mr. Carter to apologize to the East Penn teachers union. Although that's not my personal style, let me be crystal clear: no one asked Mr. Carter to apologize to the board or the Superintendent.

Since I have been on the board (7.5 years), we have closed three small schools, not "several." Alburtis Elementary (capacity ~150 students) was torn down and replaced by a 450 student capacity school. As of June 1, 2009, there were 550 students attending that school.

Kings Highway Elementary (capacity ~150 students) and Lower Macungie Elementary (capacity ~200 students) were closed not because they were "no longer needed" but because they were inefficient to operate and could not accommodate a full K-5 program (all three buildings were K-2 before they were closed).

Lower Macungie has since been reopened as a Kindergarten Center (now housing 432 half-day students). Almost all of our other elementary buildings are operating well past their PDE-rated capacity. The new "complex" under construction is actually a single school, intended to resolve all current overcrowding, allow us to close the Kindergarten Center, and provide room for expected student growth over the next several years. (It was designed based on PDE enrollment projections; with the stagnation in the economy, growth has fallen short of those projections. Instead of giving us capacity for about three more years, it should give us room for 5-8 years, depending on when residential construction resumes in the district.)

You "recollection" is highly inaccurate. Mr. Carter read a prepared statement which he did not deviate from. (He is the first to admit that he is not a polished public speaker.) He provided this statement to Mr. White.

There were no "accusations" or charges. He simply pointed out the discrepancies and basically asked, what now?

And Seidenberger's letter MOST DEFINITELY asked Mr. Carter to come to a Board meeting to apologize.

The text of Mr. Carter's statement and Seidenberger's letter are available to all to read.

Allen, stop spinning, you'll get dizzy. Do you support a resolution that will "clarify" the Board's position and encourage any citizen to step forward with questions? Will you, as Board President, clarify to the public that no apology is necessary from Mr. Carter and, in fact, you desire more citizens to get much more involved in local government?

And lastly, what about this sloppy contract approval process? Will it be fixed? What about the non-approved changes? If they were not voted on, they were not legally approved.

Posted By: joe hilliard | Jun 17, 2009 4:41:58 PM

way to go, Joe Hilliard. Call it the way you see it.

These goofy school board airheads think they can spin us dizzy with B.S.

What's the old saying?

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, Baffle them with B.S.

I want Governor Ed to debate Lt Guv Joe concerning the state budget.

Baffle them with B.S. is becoming SOP for many pols of both major parties. I think we need some tidy bowl cleaner for all levels of government.

Maybe we need to suck the septic tank dry and kick out all the idiots.
I see my comment questiong Mr. Earnshaws mental faculties has been evaporated from the blogospher/internet reality. For shame, it was a nice one!